rationalskepticism.org

Nicko wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Nicko wrote:I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

Seems like I discussed that earlier, also.

No. You didn't.

The_Metatron wrote:...

Here's another uncomfortable fact for you:

First, shall we assume rape to be non-consensual sex? Then, we get to the legal point that children are by definition unable to consent, don't we? Therefore, any sex with children is rape, right?

Except for the teeny little problem that that legal definition of age of consent is a fairly new thing, isn't it? There were times and places in Roman and Greek culture in which a charge of pedophilia would have no meaning.

...

Nicko wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Your links are only about people acting on their sexual desires with presumably consenting partnen

The_Metatron wrote:See, you're using the quite specific, and nowhere near universal, legal definition of rape as it's connected to age of consent. While I agree with that legal definition, as the line needs to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

However, legal things only matter as to consequences, don't they?

Unsure if even you know what you're on about at this point.

The_Metatron wrote:

Nicko wrote:I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

Once more, I have repeatedly pointed out a rather specific scenario, haven't I? When you find the post where I wrote something like what I highlighted above, we can discuss that. You're probably the third person who is attributing to me something I did not write.

For the love of fuck, it was the comment that started this thread!

The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Now if this is merely a hyperbolic way to express your personal disgust at such a paraphillia, then you should have said so. Given the post immediately above, I don't think this is the case.